Enlightenment – The abused story

This is a quick peek at Wikipedia. The Age of Enlightenment (or simply the Enlightenment or Age of Reason) was a cultural movement of intellectuals beginning in the late 17th and 18th century Europe emphasizing reason and individualism rather than tradition. Its purpose was to reform society using reason, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method. It promoted scientific thought, skepticism, and intellectual interchange. It opposed superstition and intolerance, with the Catholic Church a favorite target.

Have you ever thought the word ‘enlightenment’ is the most lethal weapon when it falls in the wrong hands? Let me enlighten you what can go wrong when it falls into the hands of treacherous people.

1) Emphasizing reason

Here are some classic examples of how to emphasize reason to the extent of confusing the readers:

Example 1: Jack Welch

Jack Welch led GE (General Electric) from a low of USD3.50 a share to USD60 a share from 1983 to 2001. Immediately one year after he left GE, GE shares plunged by one-third. In two years time, it plunged to less than USD10 a share, 1/6 its peak value. Today, 2013 Oct 24, its share value is about USD25, a long way off its peak at USD60 a share.

How do you reason Jack Welch’s winning formula?

Paint a good picture from the era when he was the CEO of GE from 1981 to 2011. He was the wonder boy of all the media and publishers. All the CEO loves to dream that one day he can be like Jack Welch. This is the most beautiful dream, isn’t it?

Or paints a bad picture for the two years immediately after Jack Welch left GE and writes this simple statement: A true business leader is measured by the sustenance of his works/deeds long after he has left the scene. However, the “legendary” Jack Welch left a trail of destructions in GE share value.

Example 2: President George Bush Junior’s war against terror

The 43rd President of The Unites States of America George Bush Junior invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. The media wrote about his resounding successes in these two military invasions. These two wars that began in 2001 have been tremendously painful for millions of people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, and the United States. Economically, the cost of wars to the USA alone is USD 4 trillion and is counting.

Example 3: Economic or business cycle

Before Alan Greenspan became the chairman of the US Federal Reserve Board in 1987, most investment gurus/managers timed the economy with fairly quite accurate boom and bust cycle and in the process making good returns based on their skills in timing the peak and trough of each business cycle. From 1987 to 2006, Alan Greenspan defied this reality by continuously pumping money into the economy by allowing the creation of money in the form of CDOs. Finally, the bust came in the form of the Sub-prime mortgage loan debacle. Picking up from him, Ben Bernanke continue to defy the reality of the boom and bust business cycle and pumped more money in the form of QE1 and QE2.

Look at Japan. Their leaders had for two and a half decades, since the Nikkei topped in 1989 and busted till today, have been defying this reality.

How did Alan Greenspan reason his way out of the boom and bust business cycle? Answer: In the form of his infamous Greenspan talk.

Here is an extract from the Bloomberg news below.

1) The federal government should not consider a new stimulus package, even with U.S. unemployment likely "to penetrate the 10 percent barrier and stay there for a while," former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said. Greenspan appeared on ABC two days after the Labor Department reported an unemployment rate of 9.8 percent, the highest since 1983.

Here is the confusing trap: This comment is tailored to share the same sentiment or immediate reaction from people who read the worst ever unemployment rate. However, it did not answer would it get better or worse?

2) Third-quarter economic growth is likely to be 3 percent and "possibly even higher," Greenspan said yesterday on ABC.

Here is the confusing trap: This statement came with a disclaimer, "likely". The economy is certainly not going to grow at 3% simply because he had used the word, "likely".

3) While last week's unemployment report was "pretty awful no matter how you looked at it," the economy is recovering and it would be "premature" for Obama and Congress to enact another stimulus package, Greenspan said.

Here is the confusing trap: "pretty awful no matter how you looked at it," & the economy is recovering. How to reconcile these two contradicting statements? The economy is recovery is assumed from the last paragraph: Third-quarter economic growth is likely to be 3 percent which is a one data point statistics and it is certainly not good enough to prove a recovery. Moreover he had inserted a disclaimer, "likely".

4) The "silver lining" to the unemployment numbers is that firms have cut jobs expecting "the economy would go down far more sharply than it in fact did" after the "whole financial system imploded" following the September 2008 bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Greenspan said. U.S. firms "laid off a very substantial number of people to the point that the actual hours worked fell even more than the economy," and this trend "can't continue," he said. "At some point we're going to start to see an improvement in employment," Greenspan said.

Here is the confusing trap: This trend "can't continue," he said. "At some point we're going to start to see an improvement in employment.” ‘At some point’ means when? Will it be now, or a year later, or several years later, or 20 years later? Again he used a disclaimer, “silver lining”.

Example 4: The most confusing assessments of the health of the USA economy

Here is Greenspan talk to Bloomberg news reported by Joshua Zumbrun. Please read carefully the red texts that I highlighted. In his mind, he cares was to confuse his readers. Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Former Federal Reserve Chairman AlanGreenspan said the slowing economic recovery in the U.S. feels like a"quasi-recession" and the economy might contract again if home prices decline. "We're in a pause in a recovery, a modest recovery, but a pause in the modest recovery feels like a quasi-recession,"

Home Prices:Greenspan said in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press." Asked if another economic contraction, a so-called "double dip,"was possible, Greenspan said, "It is possible if home prices go down.Home prices, as best we can judge, have really flattened out in the lastyear." Slowing economic growth, and a decline in housing activityfollowing the expiration of a government tax credit, have raised fearsthat the economy could return to a recession before completing its recovery from the worst downturn since the 1930s. The former U.S. central bank chairman said that most economistsexpect "a small dip" in home prices. The National Association ofRealtors reported that the pace of home sales fell in June for a second month. Homes are selling at an annual rate of 5.37 million, and thegroup's chief economist Lawrence Yun said transactions will be "verylow" in coming months. "If home prices stay stable, then I think we will skirt the worstof the housing problem," Greenspan said. "But right under this currentprice level, mainly 5, 7 or 8 percent below, is a very large block of mortgages, which are under water, so to speak, or could be under water.And that would induce a major increase in foreclosures, foreclosureswould feed on the weakness in prices, and it would create a problem."Financial System 'Broke': "At the moment, there is no sign of that, basically because thefinancial system is broke, and you cannot have inflation if thefinancial system is not working."

Tax cut: In an interview last month on Bloomberg Television's "Conversationswith Judy Woodruff," Greenspan said that tax cuts enacted underPresident George W. Bush should be allowed to expire at the end of theyear. Greenspan repeated this view on NBC, saying, "I'm very much infavor of tax cuts. But not with borrowed money."

2) Emphasizing individualism

Individualism is all about “I, me and myself” or “I want it to be the way I want it to be.” Does an individualistic person ever consider the feeling of other people? Does he ever put himself in the other party’s shoes? Does he ever bother if the other person is the party who is the suckers or at the suffering end of his deeds or actions?

No! No! No!

Now do you think a person who emphasizes individualism is on his right mind to achieving enlightenment?

Again, the answer is a big, NO!

Example 1: How do you measure the performance of the President of The United States of America?

Every average American was conned to believe in this statement: Positive growth in the economy or GDP growth is good for everyone. However, what is the secret behind positive GDP growth?

First, economic growth as a result of technology advancement takes decades to shows some decent results. On a yearly scale, it hardly contributes to a small fraction of a percentage point to the GDP growth.

Second, productivity growth contributed to an even much smaller, an almost negligible share of the GDP growth over the last three decades.

Third, the bulk of the GDP growth was due to price inflation. Now, the big question is: “Do you agree with price inflation being the key driver of the country’s GDP growth? Yes, or No?

Let’s take a quick check how price inflation affects two things?

One, how it had been adversely killing the value of the little money in your pocket? What was the price of gas three decades ago compared to now? What about the price of a piece of hamburger then and now? What about medical cost? What about the cost of insurance? You name it one by one, it ONLY points to one conclusion: You are the poor suckers and nothing less, despite we have been living underso many great Presidents who made proud claims that they had done exceedingly well for growing country’s GDP, year after year.

Two, what’s so good about QE1 and QE2?

Quantitative Easing pumped in huge amount of money to an economy that was sinking fast. Well, pumping in more money when the amount of goods (total GDP) is virtually the same means the excess money that goes into the stock market had immediately caused a meteoric rise in the DJIA. Ben Bernanke went on to make claims that he had done a great job by telling great white lies that the stock market rise is a good predictor of a positive up-turn in the economy. Bullshit!

“No one believes the Fed,” Krosby says in a report by Jeff Cox, a CNBC on Feb 17, 2011. “It’s not that they think the Fed is lying. But they don’t believe they are all knowing, omniscient.”

“It’s equivalent to finding out there’s no Santa Claus,” she adds. “This is not a science. The Federal Reserve is doing what they think is necessary, the president is doing what he thinks is necessary. But the market is going to act according to what it thinks is going to happen.”

Well, this time, the USA economy could be in for a long down-turn just like what Japan was for the past two and a half decades.

Who actually echoes the “great work” of Ben Bernanke?

They are the rich people and Wall Street. Why?

Stock prices go up in tandem with the rise in corporate profits. Corporate profits rises only when the price of goods sold increases in the form of price inflation. Do you think price inflation is good for the economy? This is exactly what the media has been telling you: Price inflation is good for the economy.

However, what is your pocket telling you about price inflation?

In fact, price deflation, the opposite of price inflation is good for your pocket because it makes your little money that is in your pocket last a little longer. However, the media, the President, the Fed and Wall Street hates price deflation simply because it pulls the country’s GDP growth into negative territory. That means they are not doing something right that could result in a positive growth in the economy. This is bad performance for them. Poor GDP growth or negative GDP growth for the incumbent President or political party is the most disastrous deciding factor for the coming general elections.

Price deflation is bad for the President and Wall Street, indeed. Which country leader does not want to paint a positive growth in the GDP in order for him to continue to cheat his own people that he is doing a great job despite the fact that he had been quietly engineering positive growth in the former of spiraling rate of price inflation?

This sums it up what individualism is all about. Almost everyone loves himself so much that whatever is good for him or his performance comes into his path he grabs it, despite the fact that he had clear knowledge that it is going to be at the expense of the general public.

Example 2: The media

This is the unspoken policy of the media. The media only wants to promote the good side of a story. Good story could means good for you to hear but not necessary good for you in the long term or near term. Every green reporter was taught: Always write the better story because the better story always wins.

Looking back into the last 3 decades, did any Professors in economics write anything about the negative effect of price inflation? Or how many Professors in economics wrote about the CDO's and what-so-ever inventive financial instruments produce great effect in causing a spiraling rise in the rate of price inflation? Before you answer my question, you might as well ask this question.

Would the media allow a Professor to voice his concern about the negative effect of these new financial instruments that the advertisers are peddling? The answer is, NO. The media are after their advertising dollars.

Therefore, when the media is promoting a good story about the positive effect of a new financial instrument that seems to be contributing to positive growth in the nation’s GDP, it does not allow anyone to write stories that surface its opposite effect(s). It is like slapping itself hard onto its own face.

Nowadays, no one presents a balanced view with great discussion of pros and cons. The media LOVES to manipulate the message it wants to send to its readers. That is, only the positive aspect of just about anything.

May I ask, “The positive effect of what?”

The plain answer is this: a positive emotional feeling in the readers. To be more precise, they are stirring up emotions so that the readers continue to buy into their stories, period. And that is how they generate more profits for themselves.

The media don't like to write balance views. The media usually combines their efforts together in clamping down voices that go against the good story that the media is promoting. It loves to manipulate just about anything with a continuous stream of stories that cause great emotional feelings in the readers so that they buy into their news.

For example, good stories make more people buy shares. More buyers and more money flowing into the stock market means a spiral rise in the share price. This is exactly what had become of the stock market. How many of you feel better with a rising stock market? I believe the majority of you do not benefit from it. Even if you do feel better, you are not cashing out to gain the benefit. Somehow, when the media loves to generate good stories about the stock market, its readers feel good about the economy.

3) Challenging ideas grounded in tradition and faith

What do you think is the inner self of a person who loves to challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith? The answer is rebellion. Like a youngster who wants to break free from tradition and his parents’ faith, he begins to challenge every aspect that was passed down to him. He simply does not like it at all. He rebels.

When scientists could not explain a phenomenon (irrespective whether it is grounded on tradition or faith), they simply ignore their inability and irresponsibly proclaim, “It is not scientific” and thus, cut off the subject completely from further discussion. I see this as a gross abuse of the word, scientific.

When scientists could not prove a phenomenon, the simple truth is, “Scientists are not able to prove it scientifically.” It does not mean an observed phenomenon is not scientific. The blatant statement, “It is not scientific” is not acceptable at all. However, only a handsome few dares to challenge the entire community of scientists. Here I am, poking right into their sore point.

Traditionally, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions are more accurately described as the acts of God than mere seismic movements because even though we can measure seismic movements, we are still not sure what caused these events. Here, scientists love to challenge traditions and tries to imply ‘the act of God’ as not scientific.

When scientists do not know enough of the act of God, they simply park it as non-scientific. Do you still want to buy into this argument?

What causes the four seasons: spring, summer, autumn and winter? Here is the answer. As our Earth orbits around the Sun, it rotates about its own axis that wobbles by up to 22 degrees. If you were to ask: “What causes our Earth to wobble by 22 degrees?” Until today, scientists could not provide an explanation. Do you want to imply the phenomenon, that is, “our Earth wobbles by 22 degrees when it completes a full orbit around the Sun” is not scientific? So far no one did say that. However, the people who hold strong faith in God, believes it is the work of God.

4) Scientific methods

Most ordinary laymen believe science do not lie. However, scientists do unashamedly lie and indeed, they do make blatant lies [[1]]. Why? It has a lot to do with the ego of the scientists who thought they are the smartest and shall remain to be seen as the smartest of them all.

Here are three key areas in which most scientists lie.

1) Use of inductive argument to cover up lack of conclusive facts

Mankind had always observed this phenomenon: the sun always rises from the east and sets on the west. This phenomenon repeats itself every day. However, mankind could not explain it and had to wait till 1543 when Nicolaus Copernicus[[2]] formulated a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology that our Earth orbits around the Sun.

Here is the classic beginning of all scientific lies. Ever since 1543, Copernicus (and all scientists) had used the visual presentation of the sun as the center of our Solar system with 9 revolving planets, including planet Earth to displace the Biblical statement that our Earth is the center of the universe. However, this is a mere inductive argument[[3]] which fails miserably to defend itself against its counter-argument: The sun is at the center of our Solar System does not means the Earth is not at the center of the universe. In the first place, the universe is so huge that it is impossible for scientists to first determine our Milky Way is at the center of the universe and second, prove that our Solar System is at the center of the Milky Way.

How could this gross misrepresentation of a scientific fact have stood for more than 5 centuries?

Let’s ask ourselves a simple, but more exacting question: Where is the center of activities of the universe? The undoubting answer is: Right here, Earth. The multitude of living organisms and the huge variety of activities that each organism exhibits is unmatched by any celestial body that exists in the universe. Comparatively, other than our planet Earth, all the other celestial bodies do not have life in them, at least not proven till now.

Following are two more widely accepted inductive arguments that are not conclusive at all because of severe lacking in scientific facts or evidences.

One, for centuries, coal has been described as a fossil fuel. Coal forms when dead plant matter is converted into peat, which in turn is converted into lignite, then sub-bituminous coal, after that bituminous coal, and lastly anthracite. This involves biological and geological processes that take place over a long period. The facts in italics are mere premises to the inductive argument: coal is fossil fuel.

Facts: Coal is primarily carbon and comes with some other impurities such as hydrogen, sulfur and oxygen. How could dead plant matter congregated into fine and homogenous layers of coal? Please visit an open cast coal mine and you can tell clearly why coal cannot be formed from dead plant matters.

Two, petroleum or crude oil is a naturally occurring flammable liquid consisting of a complex mixture of hydrocarbons of various molecular weights and other liquid organic compounds that are found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's surface. A fossil fuel, it is formed when large quantities of dead organisms, usually zooplankton and algae, are buried underneath sedimentary rock and undergo intense heat and pressure. The facts in italics are mere premises to the inductive argument: petroleum is fossil fuel.

Question: How could liquid organic compounds congregate or pool together into huge reservoirs? Are the sedimentary rocks porous? Fact: Hardened clay which is much softer than sedimentary rocks is already non-porous and effectively prevented water from seeping through.

2) The veil of misinformation

This is the tool that fools everyone, almost without fail. This tool is called, “The veil of misinformation” and its principle is very simple. There is no need to tell lies. Just cover up some important information so that the audience can’t see the whole picture. The audience will be fooled by what they see or hear. In other words, just tell the good aspects of a subject and hide all its negative aspects.

Have you ever imagined how potent the word ‘scientific’ is, as a veil of misinformation?

All the government officials in China love to use the word, scientific. Something that they want to promote, they say it is scientific. Anything that they do not want to talk about, they simply parked them as non-scientific. It is that plain easy!

When something is classed as scientific, the general public could not argue with the government officials, right from the village head to the President of the country. Therefore, it had become a very powerful magic word. Why?

Well, 99.99999% of the general public does not argue against something that is “accepted as scientific” because they are not scientists and hence, blindly accepts their arguments. Even if you are one of the 0.000001% scientists who know the subject (hence, the truth) very well, you should have already known that the government officials are merely using the word, scientific to fool the people. Would you dare to expose their lies or ill-intentions?

3) Statistical hypothesis testing methods

When Professor Fisher created a new branch of mathematic study called, Design of Experiments and Analysis (DOE in short), it allows scientists to stop reasoning with logics and in most cases, to conveniently choose to forgo the most important fundamental assumption behind all DOE experiments, that is, by assuming the subject of study as a black box.

This is the Achilles’’ heel of all scientific methods. Inside a black box, it is almost impossible to know the logic behind the final statistical results and how it relates to the hypothesis. Let’s drop the logical relations altogether then. Merely produce some co-relation between the null hypothesis and the statistics collected. The general public will never be able to check this severe lacking in logic behind this scientific approach. Well, here I am, challenging the gross abuse of the scientific methods and hence, do away with the need to provide a logical reasoning.

Come on, when Professor Fisher carried out his experiments with corn (maize) fields, and while trying his best to improved the yield of corns through experimentations, he had said it out very clearly, "Throw away the need to understand the fundamental (agriculture) knowledge of how a corn plant grows, I am a mathematicians. So long I can prove to you consistently how to produce better yield, I am right."

This was exactly how modern macro-economic was developed and proven, that is, throwing away the need to understand how economics works and infers from the (often manipulated) result to prove the hypothesis. Please read all the 9 articles in my personal blog ericwoonct.blog.163.com under section, “Economics”, you will begin to doubt the economics/scientists.

This is my proposed use of a suitable non-parametric test of hypothesis.

Null hypothesis: Bright aura indicates a person is healthy

Alternative hypothesis: Dim aura indicates a person is of poor health

Statistical samples:

It is relatively simple to classified group of people who are suffering from various illnesses against a control group of people who are healthy (or a group of young teenagers who are supposedly relatively illness-free).

While the null hypothesis can be easily co-related to the ranked statistics of the randomly chosen population by either a linear or multiple regression analysis, most ordinary people already have a fair understand of the null and alternative hypothesis. Let’s have a good look in some sample auric pictures of some people extracted from Google.

These two people have very bright auric fields.

These two have dim auric fields.

By asking questions or performing medical health check on the sampled population, a good co-relationship between goo health and bright auric fields can be established to prove the test of hypothesis.

Now let me push a much more difficult to accept null and alternative hypotheses.

Null hypothesis:All rich men have dim auric fields.

Alternative hypothesis:Not all rich men have dim auric fields

In the first place, these two hypotheses invite lots of debates or arguments.

Anyway, here are two simple ways of reasoning behind why I am putting up these two hypotheses.

One, a rich person is only interested in making himself wealthier and keeps working on it and to a large extent, ignore the other aspect of a balanced life style. For example, he consumes more food in endless sumptuous lunch and dinners, he drinks lots of liquor while partying or entertaining, he drives or is chauffeured in comfy limousines and hardly walks, he hardly has time for regular exercise, he womanized and etc.

Two, desiring for more of everything is in his blood and he is not interested in giving back to the society.

What is the critical co-relating factor?

Assumption: Kindness is a crucial element that could determine whether a person has bright aura or not. The above two reasons tell us clearly a rich person is not a kind person. Let’s us judge whether a rich person is kind or not.

Common observations made using the above table suffice to assist a researcher to confirm whether a rich person is a kind person or not. However, to go a step further to use the statistics collected to prove the null hypothesis that rich people have dim aura, I bet almost most readers would not agree with my choice of hypotheses or would like to further investigate into the randomness of the samples pulled. Why?

This is because the statistical methods so-called non-parametric statistical testing does not care about two co-relating factors. One, why is it a rich person is not kind? Two, why an unkind person do not posses bright aura? As of today, no scientists have any clue why these two co-relating factors are as good as proven facts.

Now, would you want to throw away the use of statistical methods as a way of proven the soundness of science or selectively use it? If it is to your advantage, use it. If it is not to your advantage, reject its use.

My God! What had become of the community of scientists? They are heavily biased to a fixed mindset of emphasizing reason and individualism, challenge ideas grounded in tradition and faith, and advance knowledge through the scientific method ONLY IF IT IS TO HIS ADVANTAGE.

Summing up, when the smart and intelligent folks (you and me are not excluded) begin to outwit each other, there will be a large output of trickeries, misinformation, manipulations, cheatings and large number campaigns or promotions, rallies, plans of actions, policies or strategies that are false or hypocritical [4].

Summing up, the term, ‘enlightenment’ has become the most abused tool.

Now, do you want to chase after the dreamed, "Spiritual enlightenment"?

Please, don't!

[1] This is a notable quote from Albert Einstein: One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts.

[2] He is often regarded as the starting point of modern astronomy and the defining epiphany that began the scientific revolution. His work stimulated further scientific investigations, becoming a landmark in the history of science that is often referred to as the Copernican Revolution.

[3] When scientists could not decisively prove a statement with sufficient scientific facts, often they switched over to make use of an inductive argument to push their point or statement across. An inductive argument is one where the premises do provide some evidence for the truth of the conclusion but this does not mean the conclusion is true. In most instances, there is no direct relation between the premises and the conclusion. Henceforth, inductive arguments are not valid or invalid. Every scientist knows about this but he chooses to keep a blind eye to fellow scientists who are using inductive arguments. This is a severe flaw in the character of the scientists, and more accurately, its wide spread use makes the entire community of scientists appears as a group of liars or people of bad character. Yet, the general public holds them in awe or in full of admiration blindly.

[4] This English translation was extracted from a phrase in chapter 18 of the book, “DaoDeJing” as translated by me, the author. The original Chinese texts are: 慧智出有大伪.